Did the Allies of WWI pave the way for WWII?

"....Germany actually was getting better by the late 1920s - things weren't so dire as they were right after the war ended."

Perhaps, , if you are willing to overlook Germany's clandestine military adventures in tank and air warfare in Russia - with the Russians - paid for by the Germans. This, of course, was to circumvent the terms of Versailles but speaks to the underlying delusion .... "if we can't get what we want one way, we'll get what we want another way..." no matter who we have to play with to do so. Remember, Hitler isn't even on the scene, he's still pursuing his writing career behind bars, IIRC.

[Off topic] In my mind one of the root cause for Stalin's purges of the military was to root out Russians who had had dealings with the Germans during this period, in much the same way many returning Russian POWs were destroyed in 1945.

Michael, you need to read about Von Seeckt, a brilliant but sinister character if ever there was one.

I dont believe that in 1929 Germany truly harboured too much ill intent toward their neigbours. They had an army of just 100000, (with secret means of rapid expansion), no tanks, no airforce and virtually no Navy. Even Poland was militarily stronger than Germany at that stage. but undoubetedly the seeds of resurgence and revenge were already being sown, not least as plans and progressive ideas. men like Guderian were already thinking through their theories and applications for war. Nothing wrong with that, but it just illustrates the latent militarism that Hitler was able to harnes a few years later. If you compare that to say Britain, virtually no serious thought was being put into major conflict at that time, at least in the military.

All that was needed in Germany was a spark to light the flame......

silence said:

Actually, I'd say the opposite was needed - a Marshall Plan rather than grinding the boot. It seems the allies just kinda said, "Ok, now you're a democracy. Make it work but don't forget you also owe us a ton of money." How many nations got a representative democracy right the first time vs. how many screwed it up?

The blockade should have been called off immediately after the Armistice: Germany was beaten and they knew it. If you keep kicking a foe when he's down, you're just whetting his appetite for getting even.

Click to expand...

DonL said:

I agree with silence.

The Freicorps also maked sure, that Germany was a republic and not a Sowjet communism regime.
They helped the republic to knock of red revolutions all around the country.
After the treaty was signed and the Weimar Republic got the Reichwehr the Freicorps were dissolved or chased from the regular Army.

Weimar was occupied from France at Rhineland occupation 1923, how long do you want to occupy a country as big as Germany with 80 millionen people?
Also you are aware the Nazi's came to power through elections, how do you want to prevent such a election?

A complete occupation would have caused a "civilian or terrorism" war against the occupier, especially France.
This had caused massacres on civiliands and occupier soldiers, it would have been very bloody from both sides.

The germans were kidded from the Allied's with the Wilson notes and the armistice. With a complete occupation all would be made much more worse.

Click to expand...

I interpreted SY's 'Robust occupation' as one that was essentially benign: an occupation that would rebuild whatever infrastructure that might have suffered on account of the war and would provide any needed security for budding democratic institutions. Done properly, an occupation might be seen as benevolent. Of course, that's a completely anachronistic path option and without the home front suffering WW2 scale depredations, even a 'benign' occupation would probably have been counterproductive.

No, no, no: the Freicorps, by all reports, detested the Republic. They were one of the most powerful forces preventing Weimar from governing effectively, mostly because they bought all the bull**** about the "stab in the back" and because the people responsible for Germany starting and losing the war bugged out rather than sign the armistice, surrender documents, or the peace treaty.

silence said:

Actually, I'd say the opposite was needed - a Marshall Plan rather than grinding the boot. It seems the allies just kinda said, "Ok, now you're a democracy. Make it work but don't forget you also owe us a ton of money." How many nations got a representative democracy right the first time vs. how many screwed it up?

The blockade should have been called off immediately after the Armistice: Germany was beaten and they knew it. If you keep kicking a foe when he's down, you're just whetting his appetite for getting even.

Click to expand...

The trouble was that the Versailles Treaty, regardless of how mean-spirited it may have been (less so than Brest-Litovsk and even the treaties proposed by Germany in the West, as late as mid-1917), the Entente did not follow up in any way that would have countered the right wing propagandists who claimed Germany was betrayed, not defeated. Certainly, raise the blockade (after Germany's defeat it was pointlessly vindictive), but make sure that the victorious Entente had (hopefully well-behaved) occupation troops.

A few countries did get it right the first time: Czechoslovakia and Austria both had functioning (albeit, most certainly, imperfect) parliamentary systems by the 1930s.

DonL said:

And the people believed.

You are forgetting the Ruhr occupation/Ruhr fight. The Ruhr fight was the last nail to the german inflation, it was also the try from France to occupy the whole Rheinland. This was very alive of every german citizien. They know they were helpless without the UK and the USA against France and Polen. That is next to the great depression a very important trigger point!

Click to expand...

Interesting article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr

"...the Entente did not follow up in any way that would have countered the right wing propagandists who claimed Germany was betrayed, not defeated."

This is essentially true ... the follow up (we have learned) is just as important as the hard-knock contact ....

Something to keep in mind, however, by 1918 the world was in the midst of a global pandemic (influenza) that would kill more people in 18-20 odd months than WW1 had .... and nobody knew how it was spreading ....

"....read about Von Seeckt, a brilliant but sinister character if ever there was one."

Just did ..... with guys like him running around in Germany and Germany's allies ..... one get's a sense of the inevitability of events for Germany and the world in the 20th century.

Thanks, Parsifal, keep coool

MM

EDIT:

"...an occupation that would rebuild whatever infrastructure that might have suffered on account of the war ..."

Belgium and France needed the 'Marshall-type' assistance .... Germany was hardly touched ... physically, IIRC

there were direct economic aftershocks from the war, arising from the destruction of things...farms, roads factories and the like. Marshall could help with that. There were seconday effects, in that many nations had foregone investment in economic and military development. An example of that wass Frances naval and mercantil shipbuilding industry. It needed a major injection of funds to modernise. so too her aircraft industry. Marshall could probably help with that as well

but there were things that a Marshal Plan could not have helped. Even though the WWI losses were a fraction of those of the next war, combined with the flu pandemic, they were considerably highers, and tended to be concentrated in a fewer number of nations. All the European nations were just about bankrupt, and all had suffered major manpower losses. this was largely before the emancipation of women. A Marshall plan could not replace the fallen sons of France (or any other country), which meant she did not have the manpower to "go to work" and fix some of her war problems.

for France, there was something else though, something that would prevent her from being effective in the 2nd war. I think it manifested itself most immediately in the falling birth rate in france, but it also affected the national morale. this was certainly reflected in the highly unstable political situation in France between the wars.

Psychologically, I think this affected Frances ability to embrace and look for change. Her army attrified, resisted change, failed to replace older officers with new forward thinking ones. I think that can be linked to her wartime experiences. Certainly some of that arose from a warped victory dosease ("why change what aint brok")m but htough she had won, it came at a terrible cost to her, and this I think affected tghe national mood for a very long time. It might also explain where all those surly French waiters get their attitude from as well.....

".....for France, there was something else though ...."

There certainly was .... France was burnt out. History catches up with countries just as time catches up with humans (.. especially SMOKERS ... )

I fear the same fate is befalling/has befallen GB as we speak.

MM

quite possibly re the brits. Certainly all sense of power has long left the building for the poms. id like to think they retain some sense of pride and moral position, but maybe im just dreaming.